It takes guts to do something that could change things forever. I’m not the obvious candidate to be a hero, that’s a fact; I have children and a wife, and an extended family that mean the world to me. Heroes, for the most part, are seen as those people who, at great risk to themselves, carry out noteworthy acts – but why does heroism have to go hand-in-hand with great risk?

There is no greater thing that can be done than securing the future of humanity, and in this truly momentous task I believe that everyone has the potential to be a hero. There are many actions available to people of all different abilities, social positions, locations and ages that, together can help free humanity from the terrible yoke of hierarchical, industrial, consumerist living; many actions that entail a wide range of risk and effectiveness, but all of which are important.

At this point it’s necessary for me to lose the majority of my readers, for the things I am about to share with you are likely to contribute to the downfall of Industrial Civilization – the “machine” of the title. If this idea scares you then you will not be alone, for the thought of losing something you feel is integral to what you are (in effect, being a citizen) is not something that most of us have ever seriously considered. But lose it we must: read this article to find out why.

To get the full picture you’ll really need to go to my book, “A Matter of Scale” (also published as “Time’s Up! An Uncivilized Solution To A Global Crisis”), and read Chapter 13. If you need further convincing, have a look at Derrick Jensen’s “Endgame” books or, for a more concise read, try “A Short History of Progress” by Ronald Wright. Come back when you are happy to help with the removal of the Machine. For those who are still reading: welcome, let’s do some Undermining.


What Is Undermining?

Undermining is the term for any form of Sabotage that damages the foundations of a system, structure or process. The target, as we know, is Industrial Civilization – the most destructive human system ever created.

Specifically, the act of Undermining Industrial Civilization seeks to provide ordinary people with the ability to think and act in an unconstrained environment, free of the Tools of Disconnection that civilization has put in place to keep us physically and psychologically dependent upon it. By Undermining Industrial Civilization, you are not aiming to directly damage its physical structure – although that may be a side-effect – instead you are impairing its ability to control people. People who are no longer controlled can decide for themselves how they want to live.

The aim is not so much destroying as dismantling the Machine, starving it of energy and making it unable to keep us living the destructive way of life we have come to think is the only way to live.

Undermining has rules attached to it; rules that help ensure that the perpetrator is kept relatively safe, and their (your) actions are as effective as possible. It is vital that you follow these rules for your safety, and that of other people:

1. Make the Tools of Disconnection (see Chapter 13, as above) your priority; anything else is a waste of time and effort.

2. Carefully weigh up all the pros and cons, and then ask yourself, “Do the benefits far outweigh the costs?” Only act if the answer is “Yes”.

3. Plan ahead, and plan well, accounting for every possible eventuality.

4. Even if you value the worth of your actions, don’t get caught.

There is a primer to the types of actions this entails in my article “Sabotage Is Not An Option, It Is A Necessity” which you might like to read before going onto the list below.

Due to the dynamic nature of the list, I have moved it to a location of its own. Observant readers will notice that (at the time of writing) there are not one hundred items listed – this is an ongoing project, and I will add to it as I think of new ones, or I receive suggestions for possible Undermining actions. If you have any ideas, please write to me at keith@theearthblog.org or make a comment below.

The location of the list is here:

100 Ways To Undermine The Industrial Machine : The List



This article was written as a response to the many people who, after reading A Matter Of Scale or Time’s Up! have asked me, “What should I do now?” At the time of writing the book it was not clear to me precisely what activities could make up the Undermining (or Sabotage, in AMOS) Toolkit. A year later, it is now far clearer.

http://aquilakahecate.blogspot.com/2009/10/giving-earth-future.html

[Thanks for the link, Aquila: I forgot to put seedbombs in, and it's on my list to add, along with a few more I have thought of. Many thanks. Keith.]

Whoa! Keith, so much of the core of your general argument is on target as far as how the machinations of what I call the false world is damaging our very home, but how is becoming more and more entrenched in radical approaches to change that speaks to fewer and fewer people (as you acknowledge at the beginning of this blog entry) who are already basically radicalized? How is making people wrong (those who run the machine) and making others (those few who are left after becoming ultra-radical) blame those who run our countries, corporations and media markets helping?

We do need fundamental changes in perception at the ground level, I agree. We need changes in perception that affect willingness to contribute to the mess or to help fix it, yes!

But what in this writing is speaking to immediate human concerns and needs, like suffering and fulfillment? This is where the majority of people live, Keith. Speaking to these aspects of their condition is what will get their attention. THEN we connect it to the health of the planet.

[Hi. The reason this doesn't speak to the majority of people is that the majority of people have no interest in changing in any way that will regain the health of the natural environment, and so we are doomed to destroy our life-support system. Industrial Civilization has ensured this is the case by disconnecting people through the Tools of Disconnection. Speak to the majority and you will get agreement only on things that are no threat to the dominant culture - the culture that values economic and material gain over *everything* else, including the future of humanity. Please read the introduction to the post again - the purpose of the undermining actions is to allow people to reconnect.

I actually resent the term "ultra-radical": what is radical about saying that you no longer accept being told how to live? If to do that you need to dismantle the part of the system that is stopping people from living in a sustainable way, then by doing it you are simply being *human*.

Regards, Keith]

Keith,

Radical is your word--I'm just pointing out that you are going further in that direction. Is this a surprise to you? Seems to me that endorsing radical action was entirely the point of your last post, the slant of many of your posts and the understanding of you by those who are writing about you. Seriously, you would not describe the contents of this last post in the context of the mainstream as "ultra-radical?!"

The point is, Keith, that I largely agree with your core position--we are mindlessly flushing our planet down the toilet; however, I am trying to point out that other than gaining some kind of momentary alternative-cachet by loudly exclaiming the evils of industrial civilization and then instructing others on how to take it out at the kneecaps, what are you getting (and giving) with this tack?

We already learned this lesson through PETA and Greenpeace--vilifying others only makes them stronger and more convinced you're wrong (or crazy). And radicalizing (or whatever you want to call it) a tiny minority will only isolate your cause.

I did not miss the point about reconnection, Keith, but tying that to destruction and alienation is a negative call. Yes, we want reconnection. Yes, we want orientation to natural rhythms. Yes, we want behavior that is oriented to natural lifestyles that are in harmony with the earth.

But this has to be a mass migration, Keith, or it won't work.

[Please can you read http://earth-blog.bravejournal.com/entry/25507. This is a *really* important point.

Greenpeace (and PETA to a lesser extent, although they *have* used highly sexist imagery in their adverts to appeal to a new demographic) have failed in whatever quest they originally had - they want to appeal to the majority; the majority will not change until it is too late for them. There is another way, but it requires a completely different attitude - which is the way I think we have to go.

Thanks, Keith]

I find it pretty ironic that one of the points on the lists reads like this:

· If you are a member of an activist group, discourage members from taking part in symbolic “actions” like marches, petitions, letter-writing and rallies. Keep asking them, “What will this achieve.”

Yet most of the actions are more or less symbolic themselves, even the more active stuff. People don't defend the system just because they don't see how bad it is, they defend it because it hasn't been smashed yet! How many people have not seen others to go from "I don't play any part in this (exploitation, whatever)", to "I just didn't know", to "I don't really want to know", "I couldn't do anything about it even if I wanted to", to (essentially) "f*** you, leave me alone", to "I didn't know / I don't play any part in this" again? How many have been unable to break others out of their self-and-other-destructive loops simply because the system is still there waiting to smashed, because defending the system is still an option (and doesn't anywhere near get you killed)??

In this context, using the author's own definition of undermining (Undermining is the term for any form of Sabotage that damages the foundations of a system, structure or process), none of the items listed qualifies for "undermining", because there's no way any of the proposals damages the foundations of the system. It's absolutely ignorant of the history of civilization to claim otherwise. There have been much better times for these appeal-kind of campaigns to have worked, but civilization has proven to bee too pathological to be changed by those means. Today, the crucial "advantage" is the fact that civilization has almost killed this planet and depends on a complex energy infrastructure. There's no excuse not to attack that infrastructure.

[Please complete your comment Ray, it's been truncated. What would *you* do - excuse my ignorance; John Zerzan seems to agree with me (see http://www.timesupbook.com, but what would he know ]

The only thing I intended to say in the part that got cut out was that you seem to be avoiding the issue rather than seriously trying to figure out what a person could do. Okay, that should've been obvious from your post anyway.

When you ask "why does heroism have to go hand-in-hand with great risk?", you're being very silly. People identify with the system and fight for it all the time, so how's any meaningful challenge to that going to be low-risk? You know, there IS this reality, where people of different species are raped and murdered all the time with no sound reason (like being killed for the sustenance of oneself or being killed to prevent rape) except some arbitrary figment of people's imagination: a need to expand; a need to have; a need to kill wholesale; a need to prove one's superiority; because killing is fun; because someone dies with or without thrilling screams--either way will do for a reason to kill for some; because you're told to; and so on and so on until you'll want to puke). The destruction and the psychopathology is so unreal in so many ways and committed in the norm by normal people, but it's still really happening and it's still gotta be stopped. So you tell me that's going to be low-risk, because this culture isn't really about killing off those who care and those who side with life, because instead it's all just an accident and a misunderstanding. You try to stop the killing and you're very liable to get killed. That's the way it has been and still is all over the world, you only have to look, hence my reference to "absolute ignorance of the history of civilization." Maybe it's just ignorance of the implications.

I don't mean that somehow heroism implies it's not going to be hard work. I don't mean the bigger the risk of an individual action the better the outcome must be. But I do mean if you're not seriously concerned you might eventually get killed for playing the part you're going to play, then you're just not taking things seriously.

[Ray, I think this is a case of tilting at windmills. You make many emotive statements, and believe me *all* of them pass through my head from time to time, many of which are the source of my anger - but we have a fundamental division at this level (which is, according to the previous poster, "ultra radical"): the activities of the very few people who are ready to give their lives / liberty in the execution (literally) of a single high-risk activity which *may* have a positive impact; and the potential activities of a host of frustrated people - the target of this article - who have been distracted from doing anything useful by the environmental mainstream and the misleading activities of the political / corporate elite, and who could be persuaded to do something of practical use, providing they don't have to sacrifice too much.

What I don't say in the article, but which needs saying here (you can find it here writ large: http://www.farnish.plus.com/amatterofscale/chapter16.htm#sabotaging) is that disconnection is the reason civilization is so powerful, and that people are "happy" to remain civilized; and that by targeting the Tools of Disconnection rather than anything symbolic or non-essential to the disconnection machine, this connection can be remade - which is the greatest threat of all to the machine. Also, a person or group can carry out multiple actions that have significant impact, because the Tools of Disconnection are not well protected at present.

I have actually thought about this, and I am not stupid. We want the same thing: I think perhaps, you realise this, but are just very frustrated.

By all means go out and hack through a power cable - but it may be the last useful thing you do, and will probably have no effect in the long run.

K.]

You are getting testy, Keith. I didn't get that Ray was suggesting you are stupid. It seems to me that a few of us are very much agreeing with you, but are trying to add some years of wisdom to the mix to help you, not to hurt you or simply argue with you.

Clearly you have thought long and hard about this subject and have crafted a message and a position that is deeply heartfelt and filled with accurate substance. I would only suggest you allow others to contribute in ways that may make your contributions that much more useful.

You are using your anger as a spearhead, which is completely understandable when working from the reactive level. As I acknowledged prior, your "reconnection" point is utterly valid and is appropriately positioned at the beginning of your message. However, deep connection to the natural world will recognize the subtleties of natural rhythms as well as how humans as a lot have mistaken abstraction for reality and how they basically have no idea that the natural world exists in the way you and I know it.

You are proposing ripping a hole in the side of the false world most of humanity lives in and believes is all that exists. What do you think will happen when you do that, if you can? From their position, this is tantamount to terrorism and certainly qualifies as "ultra-radical."

It will take fundamental shifts in the way that humanity perceives the natural world to move toward a healthy participation in it, agreed. But those fundamental shifts are not going to happen by a few people sticking their fingers in light sockets in protest.

You have a good message, Keith. Don't let your anger blunt its potential.

[Hi AEB, good to see constructive comment - it's a bit of a relief after the last tirade I got from Ray -- had to moderate it. Yes, I suppose in the (blind) eyes of the machine I am "ultra radical" but definitely don't see what I am encouraging as that; it's all relative.

I'm really up for contributions to this item; please let others know -- I have already seen some really good ideas from people. Completely agree about people wasting their time martyring themselves, but anger is good if directed positively. I am angry, but using that anger for all sorts of positive things. Have you read the "missing chapter"* in A Matter Of Scale: http://www.farnish.plus.com/amatterofscale/chapter14.htm ? It explains my anger.

Best, Keith.

*Missing, because it was taken out of "Time's Up!"]

I read your "missing chapter." While I vaguely agree that anger can be useful on rare occasions (e.g. defending yourself from an attacker,) I would submit that anger is not a functional source of connection to the natural world. In the context of the overall message of your book, at best, anger might be useful as an early motivational source; but if we do not mature past that stage quickly, we will not gain deeper access to the natural world and what it can do for us (and we for it).

The idea of sublimating anger into "positive" action is great on the front end, but don't presume the only things you can do with anger are either act it out or repress it. As we (as individuals) develop our connection to the natural world, how we (as cultures) lost the connection becomes clearer and clearer and compassion begins to supplant anger. Likewise, we begin to see how anger is actually a debilitating justification for inaction due to our perception that we have no control over our development, our suffering, our situations, our futures.

So, from the position of understanding why most people aren't connected with the natural world and why they don't behave in ways that are in harmony with it, the common person is no longer the enemy, lumped in with soulless corporations. We begin to realize that the people you refer to as "cold" simply don't know any different and there is nothing in their reality to suggest otherwise.

Those people want harmony and fulfillment just as much as you and I do, Keith. They just don't know how to get to it in ways beyond what their cultures tell them. If we show them how, we can help them and help the natural world in the process.

Abstract notions of right and wrong, justice and equality are all distractions that move us AWAY from the natural world, not toward it. Once we move past these abstractions (and all others), we make room for our relationship with the natural world to guide us.

Hi Keith,
I've barely begun organizing wild food dinners (our second is this Saturday, so very new) and I think I bring up eating wild food on a daily basis.

I guess this is similar to the suggestion of conducting foraging workshops, just a little different. I bring up eating wild food probably every day (perhaps to the annoyance of those I talk to every day?) but man, I feel like once one realizes that food literally grows on trees, in bushes, from cracks, in fields, every-freaking-where, the concept of agriculture and grocery stores becomes utterly silly.

I'm consistently meeting more and more people who already eat wild foods, or are learning about it, that I can only believe that that is one front that can help make a difference in the world.

I started designing a poster that showed various wild edibles and the seasons they're available, and started to realize the sheer impossibility of condensing the abundance that nature is providing us. I'm up to about 30 plants, most of those having multiple edible parts through different seasons, and I'm not even close to cataloging the "common" weeds/wild foods. Same can be said for my initial attempt to map wild foods locally using an online mapping software...pointless, only because wild food is so abundant.

Anyway, love the suggestions.

[Thanks Brian, will definitely add this to the list. K.]

Good stuff, Brian. I have a version that strikes people a little closer to their normal home (i.e. supermarket.)

Let's start where people are and move outward from there. Let's show people what the seasonality is for the vegetables and fruits they are already buying and familiar with. From there we could regionalize charts to include showing what is grown locally and what is being shipped in from where.

Our children (and most of the rest of us) have no idea that tomatoes and oranges don't naturally grow year-round. Their taste buds are not trained to sense the freshness or ripeness of foods, much less the flavors of the season.

I totally agree with the supermarket food poster thing. And actually, one of my good friends who has an ecologically sustainable business created one for our particular city, Greensboro, NC. I just tried looking for it on the web, but can't find it.

It's basically a list of 25 veggies/nuts/etc, set against a calendar so you can look easily down each month to determine which foods will be seasonally available.

Do you actually have that version available and ready to go, AEB? Do you put up these posters, hand them out?

I wanted to do a wild foods one only because I'm realizing that almost endless bounty of wild foods, even in the winter...

And I have to admit, I'm a newcomer to the concept of seasonal foods. It really wasn't until about 5 - 10 years ago that I really had no idea about which seasons had which parts of the plants available. And it's only been in the last couple years that I've been understanding that each season presents different parts, like roots, tubers, stalks, leaves, petioles, fruits, seeds and flowers, often times many different options from the same plant.

And that's something that the agriculturally based eater doesn't always understand.

But, this blog is awesome, and it brings forth comments from great minds. I'm so thankful for this.

Brian,

I don't have any such poster--it is merely a suggestion at this point.

I'm intrigued by your reference to "agriculturally-based eater". This implies a line that marks at what point humans perhaps began to abstract their surroundings and what supports their lives (e.g. food and food production), creating a self-imposed distance between themselves and the rest of reality.

That goes along well with what you wrote on your site about developed land. Good stuff.

Hello, Keith. A have read your articles with great interest. I think you are spot on in almost everything I only have one question: If one would manage to turn the world around and put an end to industrial civilization, how were 7-10 billion people to survive without the machine they are dependent on?

[An excellent question, Espen, and one which I address in various places in the last two chapters of my book. In my opinion there is almost certainly going to be a major urban die-off as things collapse - but the die-off would be far less catastrophic in a controlled removal of IC than if things are allowed to continue, partly because of the threshold instability of the various industrial systems, but mainly because so much of the global ecosystem will also be destroyed. In addition, humans tend to have children within the bounds of their local ecosystem - a globalised world is a great incentive to ignore these boundaries.

In theory, the current world population is supportable under permaculture principles and with non-industrial consumption levels; but I sincerely doubt the world population will remain this high.

Thanks for the question. What do you think?

Keith]

Everything it is written is totally correct. Earth is o beautiful and we must do something not to destroy it.


Please check our project on Youtube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EtfsJPuchD4
:)

Here's one I taught my children - refer to your local zoo as the "animal prison"

[Like it! Must think of other zoo-related ideas]

Hey, I just found a link to a wild foods calendar (in the UK):
http://www.campcraftwildernessskills.com/wfc.html

All we need is for everyone to make or promote wild/free food calendars for their bioregions, and we can put a nail in the coffin of "hunger".

Here's a link to an image of that local food calendar that my friend made:
http://www.brianheagney.com/files/ProduceSeasonability.jpg

One of the projects on my own plate is to create a calendar with the wild food information, but as beautiful as my friend's local food calendar.

"GReenpeace and PETA have failed wholeheartedly in whatever quest they originally had"
Here I beg to differ totally! LOL this statement shows that the results obtained in particular by PETA on animal testing for instance are being ignored. The EU passed a law last Spring and forbidding this practice and putting pressure on governments to finance labs better to make these indispensable changes. What PETA is doing in this animal rights field is certainly paying off gradually. And I support them all the way with my actions and my music. This does not make any of us one of those stereotype activists people are so fond of pointing their fingers at.
Apart from this point, I do follow what you write here. And I have had a recent experience with education which totally fits this chapter. I will expand on this laterm for it is still ongoing...Hopefully I can rock the boat a little...lolol
Amitié
Annemarie

[Actually, you may be right about PETA - I don't agree at all with their exploitation of women in their advertising, but their initial aim is not much different to what they are doing now. I will delete PETA. K]

The NRDC has a widget that will tell you what produce is in season in your state (U.S. only--sorry.) You can even get the code and put it on your own site.

http://www.nrdc.org/health/foodmiles/default.asp

I read your "missing chapter." While I vaguely agree that anger can be useful on rare occasions (e.g. defending yourself from an attacker,) I would submit that anger is not a functional source of connection to the natural world. In the context of the overall message of your book, at best, anger might be useful as an early motivational source; but if we do not mature past that stage quickly, we will not gain deeper access to the natural world and what it can do for us (and we for it).

[I completely agree with you - that's the point I was trying to make, though maybe it doesn't work as well without the full context of the book around it. Kind regards. Keith]

It is not very difficult to vilify or criticize other views, actions, or people, but to provide a solution is indeed praiseworthy and a difficult but noble task. A praise to all those that strive to provide solutions, and also praise to those that have given awareness to the environmental crisis.

In regards to anger, like other tools or mediums, anger can be used for good or bad. If anger was nonexistent in an individual that individual would not react to an injustice or corruption, such as destruction to the environment. Rather they would be indifferent to the event. Anger has many forms, the form that I am talking about that is positive and constructive is the dissatisfaction of injustice.

God did not create humans with anger with no purpose. Nor should be try to eradicate it from our souls, but rather to channel the anger into constructive action.

[Agree with this, except I would change the last paragraph to read: "Humans were not evolved to have anger with no purpose. Nor should we...". K.]

This comment has been moderated by the blog owner